1 hour ago, evissy said:

Boehly said we need to be a top side. And the glaring difference between us and Brighton so far into their ownership is we buy the diamonds from the market (or attempt to) with top money and Brighton buy hidden gems for €3-10m. Brighton is not buying Estevao, Andrey Santos, Cesare Casadei, Cole Palmer and Noni Madueke for top dollar. We just have done so. We also spent €200m for Enzo and Caicedo. 

What we have taken from Brighton is data driven decision making as I've been saying since they took over and the idea that you can make money with players. 

Why there is a massive backlash to this is because media doesn't want to dig into this as non-headline news doesn't sell anything, Chelsea-misery does. And because our fans don't think we have new owners nor do they want to see anything else but trophies and top players. 

I think the so called project seems smart and our owners seem to go full on towards this. Time will tell how it all goes. 

I don't think you understand Brighton/Chelsea strategy. Usually team asses their squad and sign player to complement/improve their squad. 

But our approach is different, It is all about signing good value player with low wages that is why we have 200 gk or 1000 rw. Player profile is secondary. Lavia, Caicedo and enzo are all very good players, not sure having three midfielders who struggle to cover ground is the best idea in PL but this doesn't matter. 

@just want us to sign a st 😂😂😂 but once again this doesn't matter. 

Edited September 3, 20241 yr by Bob stark

1 hour ago, dermott said:

It's also a bit out of date referencing having hired Potter. 

The plan hasn't changed. Potter was fired because we were playing like a midtable team. 

I think it's a bit of both.

Target being top 4 (odd win here or there) and Cup competitions, not midtable as they've hopefully now understood you can't attract "diamonds" to a mid table team. And with all the changes and rules the money is in top4 and Europe.

14 minutes ago, Simplymo said:

I think it's a bit of both.

Target being top 4 (odd win here or there) and Cup competitions, not midtable as they've hopefully now understood you can't attract "diamonds" to a mid table team. And with all the changes and rules the money is in top4 and Europe.

The grail for these owners is Top 4 qualification using their model ... that really becomes profitable if it happens ... 

I can see them attaining that, given Pochettino had us as the 4th best side for the second half of last season, but what I can't see is a commitment from the owners to get us in the position where we are genuine title challengers. It could happen, but would need a much stronger spine and a couple of their flair acquisitions to turn into worldies (Estevao and Palmer perhaps ?)

Just now, Sexyfootball said:

The grail for these owners is Top 4 qualification using their model ... that really becomes profitable if it happens ... 

I can see them attaining that, given Pochettino had us as the 4th best side for the second half of last season, but what I can't see is a commitment from the owners to get us in the position where we are genuine title challengers. It could happen, but would need a much stronger spine and a couple of their flair acquisitions to turn into worldies (Estevao and Palmer perhaps ?)

It is very difficult to compete for title when you have many holes in your squad

1 minute ago, Bob stark said:

It is very difficult to compete for title when you have many holes in your squad

Agreed. Their current player acquisition is opportunistic based on profit potential ahead of building a balanced squad. Not so much filling in holes, as buying multiple spades for the current set of labourers digging them 🙂 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/article/2024/sep/03/gnome-how-chelsea-transfer-dealings-inspired-my-new-venture

(Liew is nowhere near as funny as he thinks he is but I'll take any dig at BlueCo)

26 minutes ago, Sexyfootball said:

Agreed. Their current player acquisition is opportunistic based on profit potential ahead of building a balanced squad. Not so much filling in holes, as buying multiple spades for the current set of labourers digging them 🙂 

This.

It is less about building a winning squad, it is more about collecting/building asset aka player while keeping wages low

 

Edited September 3, 20241 yr by Bob stark

20 minutes ago, Bob stark said:

This.

It is less about building a winning squad, it is more about collecting/building asset aka player while keeping wages low

 

 

Makes it very odd that we are hiring managers with very specific needs and player profiles for their tactics to work then. By all means Poch was the perfect manager if this is their ultimate goal.

27 minutes ago, Bob stark said:

This.

It is less about building a winning squad, it is more about collecting/building asset aka player while keeping wages low

 

 

Yes, It's about building a self-sustained ecosystem where they could make healthy profits every year ( after initial investment for X years). They made some money, as most rich people do they will write off some of the losses with some creative tax claim. Winning on the field is way down from the top of their list, think we all see that by now.

47 minutes ago, PloKoon13 said:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/article/2024/sep/03/gnome-how-chelsea-transfer-dealings-inspired-my-new-venture

(Liew is nowhere near as funny as he thinks he is but I'll take any dig at BlueCo)

He missed out a lot but he is an idiot at times. Lol

I posted this in the angelo thread, the media will always be the most powerful weapon in the world.

 

Analysis - 'Angelo sale helps Chelsea balance the books'

BBC Sport football news reporter Nizaar Kinsella

The sale of Angelo to Al-Nassr is significant for Chelsea as it edges the club towards balancing the books.

The Blues will receive £19.1million, a nearly £6m profit on the fee paid to Santos last summer, to take the overall total for player sales to £188.9million.

If money banked from loan fees and sell-on clauses were also publicly disclosed and included, the total is likely over £200m.

That balances out the some £208.5m spent on buying 11 players, not including Genk goalkeeper Mike Penders and Palmeiras winger Estavao Willian, who will join in 2025.

Although Chelsea’s approach is chaotic - as one of the busiest clubs in the transfer market every summer under this new Todd Boehly and Clearlake Capital ownership - it can be both profitable and highlight that there is indeed a plan.

That plan is to sign young players who haven’t maximised their value and either wait for them to develop into first team players or be ruthless in flipping them for a quick profit if need be.

The mere association with Chelsea is believed by many within the club to raise the value of players while they also have Strasbourg, where Angelo spent last season, as a place to send players on loan before they are sold.

Eyebrows were raised when Chelsea signed Angelo, an out of form winger struggling to break into his team in Brazil in 2023, but these figures highlight the prospect of profit as a reason to sign so many young players.

Edited September 3, 20241 yr by Simplymo

54 minutes ago, PloKoon13 said:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/article/2024/sep/03/gnome-how-chelsea-transfer-dealings-inspired-my-new-venture

(Liew is nowhere near as funny as he thinks he is but I'll take any dig at BlueCo)

Jonny is suffering for trying to be another Barney Ronay. There's only one Barney Ronay.

39 minutes ago, Remodez said:

Makes it very odd that we are hiring managers with very specific needs and player profiles for their tactics to work then. By all means Poch was the perfect manager if this is their ultimate goal.

Are you sure poch will be willing to say that Sterling is no longer part of the squad because of football reason? 

Poch spent last season playing politics to keep Gallagher in the team. I am not sure poch suit Clearlake. 

 

Edited September 3, 20241 yr by Bob stark

21 minutes ago, Bob stark said:

Are you sure poch will be willing to say that Sterling is no longer part of the squad because of football reason? 

Poch spent last season playing politics to keep Gallagher in the team. I am not sure poch suit Clearlake. 

 

I was talking more in terms of management on the pitch, not off it. Poch is able to provide freedom and not be rigid tactically which benefits the players more if we are going to be collecting them all like infinity stones.

A yes man version of Poch would be ideal given what the ultimate plan is, not someone like Enzo. 

1 hour ago, Simplymo said:

He missed out a lot but he is an idiot at times. Lol

I posted this in the angelo thread, the media will always be the most powerful weapon in the world.

 

Analysis - 'Angelo sale helps Chelsea balance the books'

BBC Sport football news reporter Nizaar Kinsella

The sale of Angelo to Al-Nassr is significant for Chelsea as it edges the club towards balancing the books.

The Blues will receive £19.1million, a nearly £6m profit on the fee paid to Santos last summer, to take the overall total for player sales to £188.9million.

If money banked from loan fees and sell-on clauses were also publicly disclosed and included, the total is likely over £200m.

That balances out the some £208.5m spent on buying 11 players, not including Genk goalkeeper Mike Penders and Palmeiras winger Estavao Willian, who will join in 2025.

Although Chelsea’s approach is chaotic - as one of the busiest clubs in the transfer market every summer under this new Todd Boehly and Clearlake Capital ownership - it can be both profitable and highlight that there is indeed a plan.

That plan is to sign young players who haven’t maximised their value and either wait for them to develop into first team players or be ruthless in flipping them for a quick profit if need be.

The mere association with Chelsea is believed by many within the club to raise the value of players while they also have Strasbourg, where Angelo spent last season, as a place to send players on loan before they are sold.

Eyebrows were raised when Chelsea signed Angelo, an out of form winger struggling to break into his team in Brazil in 2023, but these figures highlight the prospect of profit as a reason to sign so many young players.

I posted this addition in the wrong thread and only just noticed it. Should be under owners thread.

 

Actually I wouldn't be surprised if it was less than 8.5mil or even in the black!

Undisclosed fees like loan fees and sell on clauses could be better than predicted.

Ever heard of a journalist/reporter saying anything positive about us...lol

If you are thinking about them looking to be a side that qualifies for CL instead of going for the trophies every year the difference in world exposure is pretty big. 

A side that aspires top 4 is Tottenham and Newcastle. Look at the difference between them and Liverpool and now Arsenal in terms of revenue and exposure. By exposure I mean the mechanics of young people choosing to follow either one or the other. You need those constant heroisms on pitch and titles. City is miles ahead of Tottenham in every money creating mechanism. They win titles and create buzz. Tottenham is Tottenham. 

I am pretty sure we want to be Chelsea 2004 rather than Tottenham (pick any year). That is the difference between mid-table mediocrity vs a big boy.

9 hours ago, nonotnowjim said:

The mid table mid market bit is the most concerning 

I said before they are great admirers of Brighton and can see how you can make a profit without winning anything.

Mid table and profits will be enough for them.

31 minutes ago, evissy said:

If you are thinking about them looking to be a side that qualifies for CL instead of going for the trophies every year the difference in world exposure is pretty big. 

A side that aspires top 4 is Tottenham and Newcastle. Look at the difference between them and Liverpool and now Arsenal in terms of revenue and exposure. By exposure I mean the mechanics of young people choosing to follow either one or the other. You need those constant heroisms on pitch and titles. City is miles ahead of Tottenham in every money creating mechanism. They win titles and create buzz. Tottenham is Tottenham. 

I am pretty sure we want to be Chelsea 2004 rather than Tottenham (pick any year). That is the difference between mid-table mediocrity vs a big boy.

What percentage of young people choose based on titles? How many support a team due to parental influence or other factors?
 

I only support Chelsea because I went to school with Tommy Langley and at 8 years of age he converted a few of us. We lost the 1967 Cup Final to Spurs, then we won the war with Leeds and the Cup Winners Cup but from the mid 1970’s to the early 2000’s it wasn’t titles that kept us Chelsea. 
 

If it was just about titles we’d all support Celtic or Rangers, they must be a good bet since no other team has won the Scottish title in about 40 years. 

1 hour ago, Simplymo said:

I posted this addition in the wrong thread and only just noticed it. Should be under owners thread.

 

Actually I wouldn't be surprised if it was less than 8.5mil or even in the black!

Undisclosed fees like loan fees and sell on clauses could be better than predicted.

Ever heard of a journalist/reporter saying anything positive about us...lol

Can't see anything negative there in terms of money

Unfortunately it doesn't say anything about the football side of things, which might well have been negative .

 

1 minute ago, BS66 said:

What percentage of young people choose based on titles? How many support a team due to parental influence or other factors?
 

I only support Chelsea because I went to school with Tommy Langley and at 8 years of age he converted a few of us. We lost the 1967 Cup Final to Spurs, then we won the war with Leeds and the Cup Winners Cup but from the mid 1970’s to the early 2000’s it wasn’t titles that kept us Chelsea. 
 

If it was just about titles we’d all support Celtic or Rangers, they must be a good bet since no other team has won the Scottish title in about 40 years. 

I agree that we generally supported teams that weren't based on trophy wins. Yes, it was about locality, family, friends etc. There are loads of well supported teams whose fans are as passionate as us, or as any trophy winners, but whose clubs never win anything.

But the match going fans are outnumbered by fans from around the world, who  choose a team based on maybe success etc.  and I don't know this for sure, but maybe feel ok with changing the team they support?

 

 

2 hours ago, Remodez said:

A yes man version of Poch would be ideal given what the ultimate plan is, not someone like Enzo. 

Nah the ultimate plan is to compete, despite Bob's best efforts to play that down at every waking moment. 

Ownership believe its a better long term and sustainable investment to build on these players whilst their value is low vs waiting for players when their stock is high and their wages disrupt the incentive model they are currently implementing. For all the criticism Eghbali is getting from Bob's post, Eghbali specifically mentions that it isn't just about increasing their value, but keeping them. That is the difference between us and Brighton. We told Real to f**k off when they asked about James. We told Liverpool and Bayern to f**k off when they asked about Colwill. We just gave Palmer a life time contract after winning YPOTS despite the insane levels of scaremongering some members on here stating we'd sell him next summer. 

Ownership stopped talking directly to Poch and used intermediaries after the league cup final defeat. All we heard last spring was that European football was a priority. It's clear as day ownership have a set and realistic ambition which is to go up the ladder season after season until we are at a place where we can challenge on all fronts. Poch would've been a safer bet to build on what we had last season but he was never going to be the long term answer. The directors believe Maresca is and they are putting all their chips on him. Let's see where we are come Feb-March. 

 

4 hours ago, Sexyfootball said:

The grail for these owners is Top 4 qualification using their model ... that really becomes profitable if it happens ... 

I can see them attaining that, given Pochettino had us as the 4th best side for the second half of last season, but what I can't see is a commitment from the owners to get us in the position where we are genuine title challengers. It could happen, but would need a much stronger spine and a couple of their flair acquisitions to turn into worldies (Estevao and Palmer perhaps ?)

The fact that Brighton is yet again mentioned in a statement about Chelsea really gives the game away.

The owners KNOW from the Brighton model that a club does NOT need to win anything at all in order to make a profit.

Weren't Brighton the club who made the biggest profit last season? 

 

Well, as a non-Chelsea fan it's nice to come on another team's forum and find measured and intelligent comments

I only came on here to see if you lot knew what Clearlake were up to

11 minutes ago, Sconnie Blue said:

Nah the ultimate plan is to compete, despite Bob's best efforts to play that down at every waking moment. 

Ownership believe its a better long term and sustainable investment to build on these players whilst their value is low vs waiting for players when their stock is high and their wages disrupt the incentive model they are currently implementing. For all the criticism Eghbali is getting from Bob's post, Eghbali specifically mentions that it isn't just about increasing their value, but keeping them. That is the difference between us and Brighton. We told Real to f**k off when they asked about James. We told Liverpool and Bayern to f**k off when they asked about Colwill. We just gave Palmer a life time contract after winning YPOTS despite the insane levels of scaremongering some members on here stating we'd sell him next summer. 

Ownership stopped talking directly to Poch and used intermediaries after the league cup final defeat. All we heard last spring was that European football was a priority. It's clear as day ownership have a set and realistic ambition which is to go up the ladder season after season until we are at a place where we can challenge on all fronts. Poch would've been a safer bet to build on what we had last season but he was never going to be the long term answer. The directors believe Maresca is and they are putting all their chips on him. Let's see where we are come Feb-March. 

 

And Todd said in Qatar a few months ago that the most important thing for the club is " stability"

Then we buy and sell loads of players, and sack the manager.

Of course they are gonna say they are ambitious, but why the f**k do they keep on bringing Brighton into their comments when they are talking about Chelsea?

 

2 minutes ago, warreng said:

Well, as a non-Chelsea fan it's nice to come on another team's forum and find measured and intelligent comments

I only came on here to see if you lot knew what Clearlake were up to

Ultimately they want the club to provide profits for their millionaire investors.